The Speed Of Gravity - Why Einstein Was Wrong

Of course, there are other possible alternatives, all of which prove Einstein was indeed wrong.

It is clear that gravity as a force must propagate faster than light. The Earth must be aware of the Sun's position instantaneously in order to update its orbital reference point.

However, if one assumes that it is not "gravity" that is holding the Earth in place around the Sun, then one could feasibly ignore this speed violation.

If one assumes that a force much more powerful than gravity is holding the Earth in its orbit around the Sun, then the Sun could indeed drag the Earth around behind it because the force pulling and pushing the Earth back into alignment would over-come this time-delay.

Gravity itself is an infinitely weak force. Its so weak that there is no possible way to account for the Earth's orbit unless we assume it propagates at an infinite speed, for it is far to weak to push the Earth back into alignment if the Earth's orbit was to destabilize.

Also, gravity is only an attractive force, unlike electromagnetism which can attract or repel. If such a force was holding the Earth in its orbit around the Sun, it would necessarily need to be attractive and repulsive to maintain an equilibrium if such a force did propagate at the speed of light.



[edit on 20-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

How would the orbit be different with different speeds of gravity? The involved forces would be the same, just delayed, so I don't see how it would matter.

The Earth would go flying off into deep space within 1200 years if gravity did not propagate faster than light. This is because the Sun itself is moving.

Given that there is an 8 minute time delay between when light leaves the Sun and when it arrives at Earth, if gravity moved at the speed of light, the Earth's orbit would rapidly destabilize.



[edit on 20-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

But it doesn't make sense to me. I found that the gravity of the sun on the earth is 0.006m/s^2. This is constant over time. So currently this gravity is 0.006m/s^2 but 8 minutes ago this gravity was also 0.006m/s^2. Since this seems the only relevant force for the earth to be in orbit, I don't see how we would be flying away. It would just mean we orbit the sun as if it were in the position it was 8 minutes ago. But what does that matter? It only means we lag a bit, but we follow exactly the same trajectory.

Originally posted by -PLB-
But it doesn't make sense to me. I found that the gravity of the sun on the earth is 0.006m/s^2. This is constant over time. So currently this gravity is 0.006m/s^2 but 8 minutes ago this gravity was also 0.006m/s^2. Since this seems the only relevant force for the earth to be in orbit, I don't see how we would be flying away. It would just mean we orbit the sun as if it were in the position it was 8 minutes ago. But what does that matter? It only means we lag a bit, but we follow exactly the same trajectory.

Think about it.

The Sun is moving through the Milky Way at 486,000 miles per hour.

That's pretty fast.

If gravity propagated at the speed of light, in 8 minutes of delay, the Sun would have moved 64,800 miles before the Earth realized where the Sun was now at.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Gravity itself is an infinitely weak force.

Rarely have I seen such inane statements as they apply to physics. I suggest you go step out of the window of a tall building to ascertain your hypothesis.

Its so weak that there is no possible way to account for the Earth's orbit unless we assume it propagates at an infinite speed

What does speed have to do with force? Hint: nothing.

Waving hands does not an argument make.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Rarely have I seen such inane statements as they apply to physics. I suggest you go step out of the window of a tall building to ascertain your hypothesis.

You disagree that gravity is an infinitely weak force?

We have the entire mass of the Earth pulling down on us right now, yet I can jump off the ground under my own power.

That's a pretty weak force.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
What does speed have to do with force? Hint: nothing.

Everything if one assumes that the force holding the Earth in its orbit around the Sun is propagating at light speed and not infinite speed. I explained why, but of course, you didn't bother to read the explanation.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
How do physicists calculate the orbit of the earth?

Do they use infinite speed G or not?

Is the speed of gravity part of the equation they use? I don't recall seeing it, which means you'd get the same orbit whether the speed of gravity is 0.2c, 1.0c or 2.0c.

It's not so simple in a 9 body system. A 2 body system would be much simpler.

What is a Barycenter?

In astronomy, a barycenter is the center of mass of two or more celestial bodies that orbit each other, or the point at which the objects are balanced. When an object is traditionally thought of as orbiting another, such as the Moon orbiting the Earth or the Earth orbiting the Sun, the center of orbit is virtually never at the direct center of the more massive body. Rather, both objects are orbiting the same point, the barycenter, that may lie more or less off center within the more massive body.

Both the sun and the Earth are orbiting their common barycenter. The inertial frame of reference for a simple 2 body calculation like the Earth orbiting the sun, if the Earth was the only planet, would use the barycenter to establish the inertial reference frame. Whether the speed of gravity is fast or slow won't affect the orbital calculations in this model because both objects are orbiting this barycenter no matter how fast or slow gravity is.

Since there are 8 planets in addition to the sun, we have a 9 body system where the calculations are more complex than for a simple 2 body system. So it's not really as simple as you suggest.

I read Van Flandern's paper here:
www.gravitywarpdrive.com...

Expressed less technically by Sir Arthur Eddington, this means: “If the Sun attracts Jupiter towards its present position S, and Jupiter attracts the Sun towards its present position J, the two forces are in the same line and balance. But if the Sun attracts Jupiter toward its previous position S’, and Jupiter attracts the Sun towards its previous position J’, when the force of attraction started out to cross the gulf, then the two forces give a couple. This couple will tend to increase the angular momentum of the system, and, acting cumulatively, will soon cause an appreciable change of period, disagreeing with observations if the speed is at all comparable with that of light.” (Eddington, 1920, p. 94) See Figure 1.

Doesn't the use of a barycenter as the reference frame for orbital calculations, instead of the discrete positions of the bodies, resolve that issue?

Here's a diagram Van Flandern uses to show the problem:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8030e71457fa.gif[/atsimg]

But if you use the barycenter as the point of view instead of the source or the target, there doesn't seem to be any aberration like he sees in his linear diagram.

And Van Flandern admits it's not so simple in the conclusion of that section of his paper, referring to the path of the barycenter:

In concluding this section, we should also note that, even in the solar system, the Sun moves around the barycenter in a path that often takes the barycenter a million kilometers or so from the Sun. So the idea that the Sun’s field can be treated as “static” and unchanging is not a good approximation even for our own planetary system.

That really doesn't sound so simple, in fact it sounds pretty complex and a rife opportunity for calculation and even assumption errors.

Like I said, I haven't done the orbital calculations myself. Maybe I will, but they won't be simple, contrary to what you suggest.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Rarely have I seen such inane statements as they apply to physics. I suggest you go step out of the window of a tall building to ascertain your hypothesis.

You disagree that gravity is an infinitely weak force?

We have the entire mass of the Earth pulling down on us right now, yet I can jump off the ground under my own power.

That's a pretty weak force.

Before you even venture to post on science subjects, study the vocabulary. In the very least, the "infinitely small" means it can be safely neglected within the limits of the problem being considered. Again, I invite you to sky dive without a parachute to ascertain this.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Before you even venture to post on science subjects, study the vocabulary. In the very least, the "infinitely small" means it can be safely neglected within the limits of the problem being considered. Again, I invite you to sky dive without a parachute to ascertain this.

You mean like in SR, where gravity is totally ignored?


[edit on 20-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


From the barycenter, this would appear to be correct, however this argument totally neglects the Sun's motion through the galaxy.

Its a neat trick the physicists are using to get around the problem of gravity's speed, but it doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.

Where in this barycenter argument is the speed of the Sun included?

It's not.

Hence, this argument is a mathematical fallacy.

The Sun's motion through the galaxy must explicitly be excluded because in order for your argument to hold water, the reference frame has to be recalculated from each barycenter.

This obviously does not reflect the reality of what is occurring.



[edit on 20-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Think about it.

The Sun is moving through the Milky Way at 486,000 miles per hour.

That's pretty fast.

If gravity propagated at the speed of light, in 8 minutes of delay, the Sun would have moved 64,800 miles before the Earth realized where the Sun was now at.

I can imagine it has an effect, but only if the planets orbit is not orthogonal to the direction the sun is moving. If it is orthogonal, it would not make any difference. I am not sure if this is the case for all planets in our solar system, but it would make a lot of sense. But still, if it is not, I don't directly see why a stable orbit would not be possible.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

How would the orbit be different with different speeds of gravity? The involved forces would be the same, just delayed, so I don't see how it would matter.

The Earth would go flying off into deep space within 1200 years if gravity did not propagate faster than light. This is because the Sun itself is moving.

Given that there is an 8 minute time delay between when light leaves the Sun and when it arrives at Earth, if gravity moved at the speed of light, the Earth's orbit would rapidly destabilize.



[edit on 20-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

What makes the sun move through the galaxy if you answer that lets see what implications that has on the ideas proposed by both sides.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Well our difference of opinion there is probably due to the fact that I think Einstein is pretty much right just as Newton was pretty much right. Someone will come along and tweak Einstein's theories just like Einstein did to Newton's theories, but other than that expectation there's some tweaking to do, I think Einstein was pretty much right and apparently you don't. But if you use the barycenter as an inertial frame of reference, the barycenter is moving along with the sun and the Earth so in that frame of reference, it's the Earth's and sun's motions relative to the barycenter that we would see, and not the other motions of the sun which we know about (Such as orbiting the center of the Milky way, for example, that would be outside the inertial frame of reference).

By the way Van Flandern seems to understand the mainstream argument pretty well based on this part of his paper:

www.gravitywarpdrive.com...

A common way to explain why gravity can appear to act instantaneously, yet still propagate with a delay, is the rubber sheet analogy (See cover illustration--top of page). A large mass sitting on a rubber sheet would make a large indentation, and that indentation would induce smaller nearby masses to role toward the indentation. This is an analogy for curved Space-Time, which is likewise supposed to be the cause of bodies accelerating toward large masses. The reasoning in the analogy further suggests that target bodies simply respond instantly to the local curvature of the underlying Space-Time medium (like the rubber sheet). Therefore, any delay associated with altering that local curvature would not produce aberration, and the target body would appear to respond instantaneously to the source unless the source suddenly changed its motion.

The rubber sheet analogy is represented as a way of visualizing why bodies attract one another. However, in that regard, it is highly defective. A target body sitting on the side of an indentation would stay in place, with no tendency to roll downhill, unless there were already a force such as gravity underneath the rubber sheet pulling everything downhill.

Well that's the model, that the gravity well is visualized as if there IS gravity pulling things down in that model. It's just an analogy, to help us visualize space-time and like any analogy, it's only helpful to a certain point, but his willful misinterpretation of the analogy and his refusal to accept how it explains the mainstream model for gravitational orbits indicates to me that the guy is probably in denial or something.

I did some more searching, and it indeed seems that the planets orbit is orthogonal to the direction the sun is moving. I found it on the blog: tallbloke's talkshop

The planets orbit the sun at approximately 45 degrees wrt the direction of the solar system’s galactic orbital motion, as evidenced by the angle the band of the milky way makes in the night sky, remembering the Earth is inclined a further 23.5 degrees to the invariant plane (the average of the planetary orbital planes). It is thought that this tilt is necessary in order to maintain the conservation of angular momentum as the solar system moves in it’s orbital path round the galaxy.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I don't think it's denial, I think it's pointing out the obvious inconsistencies with its logic.

For example, mainstream physicists can't even give a proper definition of gravity. It's a wildly obtuse exercise in circular logic in order for them to even provide a simple explanation.

What is bending? Spacetime?

WTF is spacetime and why should it bend?

How is this bending taking place?

Why should it occur on the ecliptic for planets?

In a static universe the answers to these questions are simple. Gravity is a force that arises from matter. It is an attractive force between to different pieces of matter. That's it. It's that simple. It can be explained in the same way we explain electromagnetism.

In a static universe, the logic of orbits makes total sense if one assumes gravity propagates at nearly infinite speeds. There is one universal frame of reference, orbits are easily calculated, there are no paradoxes.

Both Newton AND Maxwell's equations assume an infinite static universe with a universal speed.

Neither Newton nor Maxwell have ever been demonstrated to be wrong experimentally.

Only Einstein's theories have been riddled with paradoxes, inconsistencies, and violations.



[edit on 20-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

My own personal thoughts on this subject, the following is my speculative take on what we have observed:

Gravity must in some way be related to electromagnetic forces.

This is the only logical conclusion, given that planets are observed to orbit on the ecliptic plane.

I believe in the electric sun and electric universe models of galaxy formation. It is not a coincidence that the plasma torus of the Sun is located along the ecliptic plane. There are no gravitational explanations for why the Sun should even have a torus in the first place, let alone why planets should orbit around it. There are no gravitational explanations for why the Phoebe ring of Saturn is located on the ecliptic rather than around Saturn’s torus where the rest of the rings are.

Electromagnetic forces are the only way to explain the rotational velocities and flatness of galaxies without resorting to hypothetical forms of matter and energy. I do not believe in any form of force or matter that can not be experimentally demonstrated.

Gravity as a force is most likely some form of a torsion wave. Matter must be interconnected and aware of all other matter near instantaneously for gravity to act like it does. A torsion wave is the only plausible mechanism to explain apparent superluminal speeds of gravity. There is no other wave function that can propagate at apparent superluminal speeds. Imagine a piece of steel rebar stretching from the Earth to the Sun. If one were to twist that bar, a person standing on the Sun would see the bar turn at the exact same moment in time as the person on Earth without any apparent delay of propagation.

The universe must be steady in state, infinite in size, and have a universal frame of reference. This is the only plausible form of the universe that eliminates all possible paradoxes. Time is not a part of space; it must arise from matter. Matter is a standing wave function itself; therefore time comes from the apparent speed of matter’s wave oscillations.

How the torsion properties of gravity are related to the electromagnetic force is still a mystery to me, but it seems apparent to me there is a relationship. Matter clearly demonstrates an interconnectedness that is superluminal. Only a wave function can explain gravity. Waves must have a medium to propagate through. Therefore there must be an aether capable of supporting standing waves and torsion waves.


[edit on 20-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Before you even venture to post on science subjects, study the vocabulary. In the very least, the "infinitely small" means it can be safely neglected within the limits of the problem being considered. Again, I invite you to sky dive without a parachute to ascertain this.

You mean like in SR, where gravity is totally ignored?

Gravity is ignored, for example, in Maxwell's equations. It simply does not enter any of these. It doesn't mean that these aren't correct, to a degree.

...but you keep dodging my request to conduct an experiment aimed at determination of whether the force of gravity is indeed negligible. I suggested you jump off from an elevated point and when you are safely down, report on the results. If this is too difficult, you can drop a heavy object on your foot and write about this experience.

reply to post by buddhasystem


You're only lashing out at me because you're mad at yourself.

Deep down you are bothered by the points I am making.

Not just in this thread, but in numerous other threads dealing with Einstein's obtuse theories.

-Failure of LIGO
-Failure of GEO600
-Failure of GPB
-Failure of CDMS
-Failure of Xenon 100
-Failure to detect time dilation in quasars
-Failure to detect the Higgs

Fail Fail Fail Fail

Originally posted by mnemeth1
My own personal thoughts on this subject, the following is my speculative take on what we have observed:

Gravity must in some way be related to electromagnetic forces.

This is the only logical conclusion, given that planets are observed to orbit on the ecliptic plane.

I believe in the electric sun and electric universe models of galaxy formation. It is not a coincidence that the plasma torus of the Sun is located along the ecliptic plane. There are no gravitational explanations for why the Sun should even have a torus in the first place, let alone why planets should orbit around it. There are no gravitational explanations for why the Phoebe ring of Saturn is located on the ecliptic rather than around Saturn’s torus where the rest of the rings are.

Electromagnetic forces are the only way to explain the rotational velocities and flatness of galaxies without resorting to hypothetical forms of matter and energy. I do not believe in any form of force or matter than can not be experimentally demonstrated.

Gravity as a force is most likely some form of a torsion wave. Matter must be interconnected and aware of all other matter near instantaneously for gravity to act like it does. A torsion wave is the only plausible mechanism to explain apparent superluminal speeds of gravity. There is no other wave function that can propagate at apparent superluminal speeds. Imagine a piece of steel rebar stretching from the Earth to the Sun. If one were to twist that bar, a person standing on the Sun would see the bar turn at the exact same moment in time as the person on Earth without any apparent delay of propagation.

This would only be so if the stiffness of material is infinite.

The universe must be steady in state, infinite in size, and have a universal frame of reference. This is the only plausible form of the universe that eliminates all possible paradoxes. Time is not a part of space; it must arise from matter. Matter is a standing wave function itself; therefore time comes from the apparent speed of matter’s wave oscillations.

How the torsion properties of gravity are related to the electromagnetic force is still a mystery to me, but it seems apparent to me there is a relationship. Matter clearly demonstrates an interconnectedness that is superluminal. Only a wave function can explain gravity. Waves must have a medium to propagate through. Therefore there must be an aether capable of supporting standing waves and torsion waves.

Aren't you introducing invisible and unmeasurable concepts here? I am not saying that is bad per se, but isn't that your criticism against the science based on Einsteins theories?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

You're only lashing out at me because you're mad at yourself.

I'm lashing at the obvious silliness of your pronouncements such as "gravity is infinitely weak and can't hold together the Solar system". At some point, it's just no longer cute. And no, I'm not mad at myself for having a solid science background.

Originally posted by -PLB-
This would only be so if the stiffness of material is infinite.

There wouldn't be an infinite 'stiffness' per-say. It would be bound to the 'stiffness' of the forces constituting the electron. We can't punch a hole in an electron, but we can obliterate one with a positron, which in my view is simply a wave function that cancels out the electrons wave function, hence ending its existence.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Aren't you introducing invisible and unmeasurable concepts here? I am not saying that is bad per se, but isn't that your criticism against the science based on Einsteins theories?

I said I don't believe in forces or matter that can not be demonstrated experimentally.

So, in my theory, have I proposed any new forces or forms of matter?

No, I have not.

Proposing that matter exists within an aether is not conjuring up either a new form of matter nor is it inventing a new force. It is explaining how matter exists in the first place. There is a distinct difference.

Dark matter is an entirely new form of hypothetical matter. It is "non-barionic" - that is to say, it is not real. I don't believe in such nonsense. Only real matter that can be measured exists. Proposing an aether is perfectly consistent with this argument.